Exposing Islam

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Are There 26 Qur’ans?

Yeah… And Here’s Why That’s Not Just a Rumor

So you’ve probably heard Muslims say, “There’s only one Qur’an, and it’s been perfectly preserved since the time of the Prophet.” I used to think that too. But once I started digging into the actual history, I realized — that’s not really how it works.

Short version?
No, there’s not just one Qur’an. There are actually multiple versions — and not just in how people pronounce things. I’m talking different words, different grammar, and even different meanings. And here’s the kicker: Islamic scholars have always known this.

Let me break it down.

🚫 Myth: “There’s Just One Qur’an — The Rest Are Just Pronunciation Differences”

That’s what most people are taught. You’ll hear things like:

“The qirāʾāt are just different ways to pronounce the same thing — they don’t change the meaning.”

Sounds nice, right? But it doesn’t hold up when you look at the details.

🧨 Reality: The Qirāʾāt Have Different Words — Not Just Accents

There are officially 10 (some say 14 or more) accepted versions of the Qur’an — called qirāʾāt — and they’re not all saying exactly the same thing.

For example:

In Surah 2:184, the Hafs version says “feed a poor person” (مسكين), but the Warsh version says “feed poor people” (مساكين). That’s a legal difference — especially when it comes to fasting and paying compensation.
In Surah 21:4, Hafs says, “He said,” while Warsh says, “Say.” That’s a totally different speaker — which changes the meaning of the verse.

So no, it’s not just about accents or pronunciation. It’s about content.

📜 And Scholars Knew This All Along

This isn’t new or secret info. Scholars like Ibn Mujāhid (who picked the “main 7” readings) and Ibn al-Jazarī (who expanded it to 10) were fully aware that these versions had differences in wording and grammar.

Ibn al-Jazarī even had a rule: for a reading to count, it had to match a copy of Uthmān’s Qur’an, be grammatically correct, and have strong transmission. That means they knew not all versions said the same thing — but they still considered them all “valid.”

🔥 The 1924 Cairo Qur’an Was a Government Pick — Not a Divine Choice

In the 1920s, Egypt had a problem: kids were bringing different Qur’an versions to school exams, and it caused confusion.

So the government stepped in and said, “We’re just going to use the Hafs version.” They printed it, made it the official one, and literally burned the others to avoid mix-ups.

Yup — burned. Just like Uthmān did with earlier codices.

Even Muslim scholar M.M. al-A‘zami admitted this in his book: the Ministry of Education destroyed the other versions to standardize everything.

If there was really only one Qur’an, why would they need to burn the rest?

🌍 Different Countries Still Use Different Versions Today

The Hafs version is the most common now, but not universal.

Country/Region	Version Used
Morocco, Algeria	Warsh
Libya	Qalun
Sudan, West Africa	al-Duri, Khalaf
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan	Hafs

And these versions don’t match word-for-word. Scholars have counted over 1,000 differences between them — and some of those affect legal rulings or theological interpretations.

🧠 Even Top Scholars Admit It’s Not One-Size-Fits-All

People like Shady Nasser, Yasir Qadhi, and Jonathan A.C. Brown have all pointed out that early Qur’anic texts were fluid. They didn’t all look or sound the same.

Jonathan Brown even said:

“The differences between the qirāʾāt were so numerous that scholars were forced to accept that there was no single Qur'anic text.”

So yeah… not exactly “perfectly preserved.”

🧾 And Apologists Kinda… Cherry-Pick

Some Muslim apologists try to quote guys like Jonathan Brown or Fazlur Rahman to back up the “one Qur’an” claim. But those quotes are usually talking about belief — not manuscript evidence.

If you actually read the academic work — by people like Andrew Rippin, Nicolai Sinai, or François Déroche — they clearly show there were variant texts of the Qur’an in the early centuries.

The Sana’a manuscripts found in Yemen? They’ve got layered text — like one version was written, then erased, then another version put on top. That’s called a palimpsest. And the content isn’t always the same as what’s in the modern Qur’an.

❓ So… What’s With the “26 Qur’ans” Thing?

That number came from a missionary who laid out 26 different printed Qur’ans side-by-side — all with different Arabic texts. Muslims quickly tried to dismiss it as “just pronunciation,” but the differences are right there on the page.

The actual number could be higher. You’ve got:

10 accepted qirāʾāt
Each with 2 riwāyāt (transmissions)
Variants within those
Dozens of printed versions with slight changes

So yeah — more than 26, technically.

⚔️ Bottom Line: One Faith, Many Qur’ans

Muslim apologists often try to redefine what “Qur’an” means — like “oh, it’s the general idea that’s preserved.” But if the Qur’an is supposed to be the exact word-for-word revelation of God, then…

Which version is the right one? Hafs? Warsh? Qalun? All of them? None of them?

Because if they all have different words, they can’t all be the exact same message from God. That’s just logic.

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Muhammad and Zaynab

When a Prophet Wants Another Man’s Wife

A Moment That Breaks the Moral Standard

Let’s not sugarcoat this: Islamic tradition contains a moment that, if true, should trouble anyone who believes Muhammad was a divinely guided prophet. According to respected Muslim sources, Muhammad developed desire for Zaynab bint Jahsh—who, at the time, was married to his adopted son, Zayd ibn Harithah.

This isn’t about a private failing. It’s a theological red flag. If this happened as recorded, Muhammad failed the moral test God applies to prophets.

1. The Story from Within Islam: Lust and a Marriage Scandal

Muslim sources don’t deny the story. They record it matter-of-factly. One of the most telling accounts comes from Tafsir Fath al-Qadir (Vol. 4, p. 404):

“The Prophet entered Zayd’s house and saw Zaynab. She rose to meet him, and her beauty struck him. He desired her…”

This commentary is linked directly to Qur’an 33:37, which says Muhammad was hiding something in his heart that “Allah was going to reveal.” That “something” was his desire for Zaynab. He even told Zayd to stay married to her—while secretly wanting otherwise. Eventually, Zayd divorced her, and Muhammad married her himself.

It caused such scandal that the Qur’an had to step in with a divine justification.

2. The Bible’s Moral Clarity: Desire Itself Is a Sin

Let’s contrast that with what the Bible says about this kind of situation:

Exodus 20:17: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”
Matthew 5:28: “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

In the biblical framework, lust isn’t a small issue. It’s not excused because “he didn’t act on it right away.” The thought itself is sin. The heart matters. That’s the standard Jesus set — not just outer behavior, but inner purity.

By that standard, Muhammad doesn’t just fail the prophetic ideal — he fails basic moral integrity.

3. Prophets Must Reflect God's Character

Prophets aren’t just message carriers. They are supposed to model God’s holiness.

Habakkuk 1:13: “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.”

That’s the God of the Bible. And He doesn’t appoint prophets who act in secret self-interest—let alone pursue another man’s wife.

When King David fell into similar sin, God didn’t say “It’s human.” He rebuked him sharply through the prophet Nathan (2 Samuel 12).

Yet in Muhammad’s case, the Qur’an doesn’t rebuke—it justifies. That should make us pause.

4. Jesus vs. Muhammad: A Study in Contrast

The contrast with Jesus is stark.

Hebrews 4:15: Jesus was “tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.”
He didn’t just teach purity — He lived it.
He never manipulated spiritual authority for personal gain.
He never “concealed desire” behind theological excuses.

While Muhammad was hiding what he wanted, Jesus was resisting what He didn’t. One modeled human compromise; the other, divine character.

5. Why This Matters: Theological Disqualification

Jesus said:

“By their fruits you will recognize them…” — Matthew 7:20

Muhammad’s “fruit” in this story is troubling:

Concealed lust
Marrying his adopted son’s wife
Needing a divine “pass” to make it okay

It doesn’t align with the life of someone speaking on behalf of a holy God. In fact, the Bible warns:

1 John 4:1: “Test the spirits… for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

This isn’t an overreaction. It’s a biblical requirement: judge prophets by their moral lives. And here, Muhammad fails that test.

6. Muslim Responses: None That Hold Up

Muslim scholars and apologists have tried to soften the blow:

“The marriage was for legal reform.” But the problem isn’t the marriage—it’s the desire that came first, and the secrecy around it.
“This shows Muhammad was human.” Yes, but lusting after your adopted son’s wife is not just human—it’s sinful.
“Allah permitted it.” That raises a bigger problem: What kind of God overrides His own moral standards to accommodate a prophet’s urges?

These answers don’t resolve the issue. They highlight it.

7. The Verdict: Muhammad Fails the Prophetic Standard

If this story happened as recorded—and it’s deeply embedded in Islamic tradition—then Muhammad can’t be considered a true prophet by biblical standards. Not because of outside bias, but because of his own actions, as preserved in Muslim texts.

This isn’t just uncomfortable. It’s disqualifying.

“By their fruits you will recognize them.” — Matthew 7:20
And by this fruit, Muhammad is found wanting.

Monday, July 14, 2025

The Archaeological Assault on Islam’s Origins

When Stones Tell a Different Story

Islam claims to be grounded in history — real events, real people, real places. But here’s the catch: history leaves fingerprints. You can’t hide from archaeology. You can spin theology all you want, but stone buildings, coin inscriptions, and ancient texts don’t lie.

So, if Muhammad really declared Mecca as the Qibla (direction of prayer) in 624 CE, and if the Qur’an is truly a perfectly preserved, God-given book, then the evidence should back that up. But it doesn’t.

In fact, the physical record tells a very different story — one where Islam didn’t come fully formed out of the Arabian desert, but was slowly built, reworked, and retrofitted over time.

Let’s break this down.

1. The Qibla Problem: Why Were Early Mosques Pointing the Wrong Way?

According to the Qur’an (2:144), Mecca became the official direction of prayer in 624 CE. So, logically, all mosques built after that should face Mecca, right?

Wrong.

Let’s look at some early mosques:

Wasit Mosque (Iraq, ~705 CE): Off by 33°. Way too far north.
Baghdad Mosque: Off by 30°, also north.
Kufa Mosque: Early sources say it pointed west.
Fustat Mosque (Egypt): The Qibla was wrong for years before someone fixed it.

These weren’t slapdash structures. These were permanent stone mosques in major cities. Their builders weren’t guessing. So why the misalignment?

The pattern is consistent — not random — and most point toward Jerusalem or northwest Arabia, not Mecca.

To make things even more awkward, a Christian writer in 705 CE, Jacob of Edessa, notes that the Arabs (he calls them “Mahgraye”) were praying east, not toward Mecca — over 80 years after Mecca was supposedly canonized.

Let’s be real: If Mecca was so important from day one, this wouldn’t be happening. The early Muslims didn’t pray toward Mecca — because Mecca wasn’t the center yet. That idea came later.

2. The Dome of the Rock: Islam’s First Monument Had No Mecca

In 691 CE, Caliph Abd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem — one of Islam’s first monumental religious sites.

But here’s what’s weird:

It’s octagonal, built for circumambulation, not prayer.
It has no Qibla (prayer direction).
It doesn’t mention Muhammad’s night journey (Mi’raj), even though later Islamic tradition ties it to this exact spot.

Instead, the inscriptions on it attack Christian beliefs, deny Jesus’s divinity, and promote Muhammad’s prophetic authority.

This wasn’t a monument to an established religion. It was a declaration of a new, polemical identity — something still in the making.

Later, even Caliph Suleyman (Abd al-Malik’s successor) visited Mecca to ask about the Hajj — and left confused, still favoring Jerusalem.

Why the confusion, decades after Muhammad’s supposed death? Simple: Mecca wasn’t central yet. Its importance was retroactively assigned.

3. The Inscriptions Don’t Lie: Where Was Muhammad?

Yehuda Nevo studied early Arabic rock inscriptions from the 600s and early 700s. His findings? Devastating.

For decades, there’s no mention of Muhammad at all — not in religious graffiti, not in prayers, not in state declarations.
The first appearance of “Muhammad is the messenger of God” shows up in 690 CE — on a coin.
The first full shahada (Islamic declaration of faith)? Only appears in the Dome of the Rock in 691 CE.

Before that, Arab inscriptions reflect a vague monotheism — closer to a fringe Christian sect than anything distinctly “Islamic.”

Then suddenly, Muhammad shows up everywhere — not as part of a natural movement, but like a state-mandated rebrand.

Even then, it took decades for the name and the creed to show up in everyday inscriptions. A lot of people didn’t get the memo.

If Muhammad had been a famous prophet since 610 CE, this silence makes no sense. Unless… he wasn’t famous yet. Or even fully “invented.”

4. The Qur’an: A Late Book, Not a Live Broadcast

Muslim tradition says the Qur’an was compiled and finalized by Uthman around 650 CE. But archaeology tells a different story:

The earliest Qur’anic phrases don’t show up until Abd al-Malik’s reign (~685–705 CE) — on coins and buildings, not manuscripts.
The inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock have variants — different words, missing lines, stuff that’s not in the Qur’an today.
Early manuscripts and papyri show no standardized text until at least the mid-700s.

Scholar John Wansbrough argued the Qur’an was a patchwork of oral traditions, compiled much later than claimed. And the evidence backs him up.

Even the Islamic state seems to admit this. In 705 CE, governor Hajjaj ibn Yusuf recalled earlier versions of the Qur’an and sent out new “corrected” ones across the empire.

That’s not “preservation.” That’s editing.

Conclusion: When Stones Speak, Myths Crack

The archaeology is clear:

No early Qibla pointing to Mecca.
No early mention of Muhammad.
No early, unified Qur’an.

Instead, what we see is a slow, deliberate process: a new Arab identity being built after the conquest, by rulers who needed religious legitimacy. Islam wasn’t born in a cave. It was crafted in palaces, debated in political councils, and carved into stone long after the fact.

Islam, as we know it, was not revealed fully-formed in the 7th century. It was constructed — theologically, politically, archaeologically.

And the stones don’t lie.

Sunday, July 13, 2025

Allah Couldn’t Save Muhammad

The Poisoned Prophet and the Collapse of Omnipotence

In Islam, one of the most repeated claims about Allah is that He is all-powerful. Not just mighty, not just strong—but absolutely omnipotent. He’s called al-Qadir (The Powerful), al-‘Aziz (The Almighty), and al-Muqtadir (The Supremely Able). But claims are easy. The question is: Does the evidence back it up?

This isn’t just abstract philosophy. There’s a real historical moment—recorded in Islam’s own most trusted texts—that puts this to the test. It’s not discussed often, but it should be. Because when Muhammad was poisoned at Khaibar, Allah was silent. And that silence isn’t just tragic—it’s theologically devastating.

1. The Poison That Outlasted a Prophet

After the Muslim conquest of Khaibar, a Jewish woman served Muhammad a lamb—laced with poison. He ate it. He realized too late. And although he stopped, the damage was already done.

Years later, as he lay dying, Muhammad said:

“I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and now I feel as if my aorta is being cut.” — Sahih Bukhari 4428

That wasn’t metaphor. It was agony. And it wasn’t a one-time wound. Muslim sources say the poison lingered in his body for years, eventually leading to his death. That’s not just a medical footnote—it’s a theological crisis.

2. Where Was Allah?

Islam teaches that Allah protects His prophets. That He hears their prayers. That He is close when His servants call.

Qur’an 6:61 — “He sends guardian angels over you…”
Qur’an 2:186 — “I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me.”
Qur’an 3:160 — “If Allah helps you, none can overcome you.”

So let’s ask the obvious:

Why didn’t Allah stop the poison?
Why didn’t He heal Muhammad afterward?
Why didn’t He respond when Muhammad prayed for relief?

This wasn’t some anonymous believer. This was the Seal of the Prophets. If Allah was ever going to act, this was the time.

But He didn’t.

3. The Silence of Heaven

Unlike stories in the Bible—where God steps in to protect His people—this story has no miracle. No healing. No divine rescue. Just pain. And silence.

Contrast that with:

Daniel 6 — God shuts the mouths of lions.
1 Kings 17 — Elijah raises a boy from the dead.
John 10:18 — Jesus says, “No one takes my life from me…I lay it down of my own accord.”

Those are moments of divine control. Of unmistakable power. But Muhammad’s death doesn’t look like that. It looks like neglect. Or worse—powerlessness.

4. Prayers That Went Unanswered

According to Islamic sources, Muhammad prayed for healing. Repeatedly. But the poison lingered. The pain grew worse. And finally, he died from it.

Let’s be honest: if your God doesn’t respond to the dying prayers of His final prophet, what kind of God is that?

“I respond to the one who calls on Me…” — Qur’an 2:186

Except here, He didn’t.

5. The Qur’an’s Own Words Backfire

There’s another layer—and it’s chilling. In Qur’an 69:44–46, Allah says:

“If Muhammad had made up something against Us, We would have cut his aorta.”

And remember what Muhammad said as he was dying?

“I feel as if my aorta is being cut…”

Coincidence? Maybe. But if taken seriously, the Qur’an itself ends up sounding like an accidental admission that Muhammad died as a false prophet under its own criteria.

That’s not just irony—it’s self-defeating theology.

6. Omnipotence—or Just Words?

If Allah is all-powerful, why the inconsistency? He’s supposedly near and responsive, but fails to act. He’s claimed to support His prophets, yet Muhammad dies from slow, preventable poisoning. He’s called just and protective, but offers no justice or protection here.

Is that omnipotence—or impotence?

Omnipotence has to mean more than a name. It has to show up in reality. Otherwise, it’s just talk.

7. Final Verdict: A God Who Didn’t Show Up

This wasn’t just an unfortunate event. It was the defining end of Muhammad’s life. And what it reveals is stark:

No healing
No justice
No answered prayer
No divine rescue

Just slow death.

If Allah could have stopped it but didn’t, what kind of God is He? And if He couldn’t, is He God at all?

In the end, the poison at Khaibar didn’t just kill a man. It exposed a theological flaw so deep, no verse can paper over it.

“By their fruits you will recognize them…” — Matthew 7:20

And in this fruit—painful, unanswered, and fatal—the cracks in Islamic theology are plain to see.